Just Saw Avatar At Paragon In Imax 3d

[wayfarer108]

I fear this film will be used to further propagate the whole global warming hoax and the idea that humans are to blame and are ripe for a culling.

And I applaud the propagation of such notions. The human species has abused its right to occupy this planet, and are long overdue for a wakeup call

[Zzinged]

Has anyone been able to book IMax Paragon tickets online? I spent at least 30 minutes trying this morning to book online or through the phone; a most frustrating experience. The phone was tied up about 99% of the time and the one time I got through I was immediately put on hold without anyone speaking to me. The booking hotline was little help and rather convoluted but I eventually arrived at a message saying phone booked seats were no longer available. As for the online site (http://onlineticket.majorcineplex.com/Vista/onlineticket/2008/index/login.php), the IMax theatre couldn't be selected for whatever reason.

[barrella]

Has anyone been able to book IMax Paragon tickets online? I spent at least 30 minutes trying this morning to book online or through the phone; a most frustrating experience. The phone was tied up about 99% of the time and the one time I got through I was immediately put on hold without anyone speaking to me. The booking hotline was little help and rather convoluted but I eventually arrived at a message saying phone booked seats were no longer available. As for the online site (http://onlineticket.majorcineplex.com/Vista/onlineticket/2008/index/login.php), the IMax theatre couldn't be selected for whatever reason.

100% the same as me, I booked and when I arrived I was told my tickets where gone, even though we was early. The booking system is a waste of space.

[Birdman]

The movie has nice effects, it's entertaining, but for sure not that exceptional sophisticated like for instance "Blade Runner" seen in the early 80s or "The Omega man" & "A Clockwork Orange" in the early 70s.

Haven't seen anyone make the claim that it is. It's more fantasy than science fiction.

So nowadays only effects count? Not for me. That's like eating a Big Mac. It tastes nice, but nothing more...

Sidenote: Liked your old avatar.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Birdman

[GarryP]

I really enjoyed it and would give it an 8 or 9 out of 10. My son (20 years old), however, only rated it a 6 or 7. He said he enjoyed the effects but the storyline wasn't that good.

[mark5335]

Has anyone been able to book IMax Paragon tickets online? I spent at least 30 minutes trying this morning to book online or through the phone; a most frustrating experience. The phone was tied up about 99% of the time and the one time I got through I was immediately put on hold without anyone speaking to me. The booking hotline was little help and rather convoluted but I eventually arrived at a message saying phone booked seats were no longer available. As for the online site (http://onlineticket.majorcineplex.com/Vista/onlineticket/2008/index/login.php), the IMax theatre couldn't be selected for whatever reason.

I had this experience also. So instead we ended up doing an online booking through thaiticketmajor.com ("TTM"). TTM also have there own ticket booth where you can collect your pre-booked tickets away from the general (long) queue. It's located next to the Starbucks and the Nokia area of the theatre complex.

[Meridian007]

Two weeks ago, after reading all the raving online, I decided I wanted to see it at the Paragon IMAX. My girlfriend was out of town until this past Sunday, so I planned to book tickets for then. I was in the Siam area so I decided to book the tickets in person, and after reading the stories on here, I'm glad that I did. There was only one group ahead of me in line, the final day of booking was Jan. 3 (the date I wanted, I'm sure they've extended it now), but I was the first person to choose my seats for that day.

Maybe there are multiple IMAX theaters in Paragon, but I didn't see any honeymoon seats. I chose 2 aisle seats in the middle of the theater for 350B each. My ticket guaranteed my seat, so no problem. I think booking over the phone is fraught with problems here, I hate to even book a table at a restaurant. My suggestion is to go there and book your seat.

As to the movie, it was amazing on many levels! Yes the plot is an old re-hash, (I saw a synopsis for Pocahontas on the internet that someone had replaced the names of characters with the ones from Avatar, and it completely worked), but it was still a great movie to watch. Don't go with too many preconceived notions of a great plot, just go and enjoy the ride. My girlfriend enjoyed it too, she kept calling me a Navi because she said the size difference between them and the humans was similar to the two of us! (I am quite a bit taller than her, so I guess she's not far off!) I can't wait till it comes out on DVD!

Edited January 5, 2010 by Meridian007

[toptuan]

I fear this film will be used to further propagate the whole global warming hoax and the idea that humans are to blame and are ripe for a culling.

I agree about the great visual effects, but would also agree with this poster about the plot/script being a bit "preachy." I'm getting tired of the drove of movie plots which are anti-government, anti-military, anti-corporate, and in this case, anti-human! There's a place for good government, effective military, and responsible business--but you just don't get a lot of that perspective in the film industry. It's a Hollywood value system which doesn't match the majority of viewers values.

[bonobo]

I fear this film will be used to further propagate the whole global warming hoax and the idea that humans are to blame and are ripe for a culling.

I agree about the great visual effects, but would also agree with this poster about the plot/script being a bit "preachy." I'm getting tired of the drove of movie plots which are anti-government, anti-military, anti-corporate, and in this case, anti-human! There's a place for good government, effective military, and responsible business--but you just don't get a lot of that perspective in the film industry. It's a Hollywood value system which doesn't match the majority of viewers values.

Here I disagree with you.  I feel most of the viewing public would claim ownership of the HOLLYWOOD version of environmental values.  It is hard to argue with the base message of environmental protection in movies such as WALL-E, Pocohantas, and yes, Avatar.  It is the implementation of environmental action upon which everyone is not in agreement.  Hollywood does not have to worry about jobs, costs, causes, fixes, etc. 

But as I wrote before, just suspend your politics for a few hours and enjoy the movie for the visual spectacle that it is. I don't believe in hobbits and elves, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  And as a man of the 20th and now 21st Century , I am not a proponent of imperialism, but dang, Zulu! was one great movie (as was Breaker Morant even though I cannot condone what the real person did).

[toptuan]

I fear this film will be used to further propagate the whole global warming hoax and the idea that humans are to blame and are ripe for a culling.

I agree about the great visual effects, but would also agree with this poster about the plot/script being a bit "preachy." I'm getting tired of the drove of movie plots which are anti-government, anti-military, anti-corporate, and in this case, anti-human! There's a place for good government, effective military, and responsible business--but you just don't get a lot of that perspective in the film industry. It's a Hollywood value system which doesn't match the majority of viewers values.

Here I disagree with you. I feel most of the viewing public would claim ownership of the HOLLYWOOD version of environmental values. It is hard to argue with the base message of environmental protection in movies such as WALL-E, Pocohantas, and yes, Avatar. It is the implementation of environmental action upon which everyone is not in agreement. Hollywood does not have to worry about jobs, costs, causes, fixes, etc.

But as I wrote before, just suspend your politics for a few hours and enjoy the movie for the visual spectacle that it is. I don't believe in hobbits and elves, but I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And as a man of the 20th and now 21st Century , I am not a proponent of imperialism, but dang, Zulu! was one great movie (as was Breaker Morant even though I cannot condone what the real person did).

I appreciate and evaluate movies for more than the visual spectacle. The total package, including the direct or indirect messages, make it more intriguing to me. I don't "suspend" anything. Being aware of the medium's message also helps me to be a wiser consumer, unswayed by the propaganda the entertainment industry is so free to disseminate.

Each to their own.

Edited January 6, 2010 by toptuan

[bonobo]

I appreciate and evaluate movies for more than the visual spectacle. The total package, including the direct or indirect messages, make it more intriguing to me. I don't "suspend" anything. Being aware of the medium's message also helps me to be a wiser consumer, unswayed by the propaganda the entertainment industry is so free to disseminate.

Each to their own.

Yes, to each his own.

All aspects of a movie, in this case, make up what it is, true.  But I am not going to limit myself to movies which agree with my rather eclectic political views, books which mirror my views, or music written or performed by people with whom I like and admire.  

If I happen to agree with the message or admire the performer, all to the good.  But I can still enjoy entertainment even if I am not in line with the message or do not really like the performer as a person.

On the other hand, if others choose to boycott something for any one of those reasons, so be it--it is no skin off my nose. (I do have one case of my own. I will not buy any Frank Sinatra music because of a fight he tried to start with me, so I do understand the sentiments.)

[toptuan]

Bonobo, why do you bring up the new subjects of "limiting yourself to movies which agree" and "boycott?" You didn't get it from me.

I saw Avatar and probably will see it again.

It's just that I don't suspend half my values to do it. I observe the "total package" for what it is.

[Phil Conners]

Any difference between "normal" 3D and IMAX 3D ?

[bonobo]

Bonobo, why do you bring up the new subjects of "limiting yourself to movies which agree" and "boycott?" You didn't get it from me.

I saw Avatar and probably will see it again.

It's just that I don't suspend half my values to do it. I observe the "total package" for what it is.

I never wrote that you wanted to boycott a movie.  I used the term as there have been many movies which have been boycotted by people and groups for a perceived or real message.  And to mention that is a logical progression from my initial point of not letting the environmental message keep someone from enjoying the movie, if that someone is against either "preaching" or environmental messages in their own right.

Be-that-as-it-may, no use wasting more space and effort on that point here.  No harm, no foul.

To the movie itself, in only three weeks, it has become only the 5th movie in history to break the $1 billion mark.  It has been the number one movie in every single market except India. I think that is a pretty good indication that the movie is worth seeing.

[bonobo]

Any difference between "normal" 3D and IMAX 3D ?

IMAX is able to project over a much larger screen and at a much higher resolution.  The end result is that the experience is more engrossing, more vivid.  On a movie such as Avatar, where even the smallest details are pretty astonishing, I think IMAX makes a huge difference in the viewers ability to take it all in.

[Andy94]

When's it gonna be available on DVD?

Never ... in 3 D

Seen the movie last Saterday in Central Plaza Khonkaen

A great movie for the whole family

[dantilley]

To the movie itself, in only three weeks, it has become only the 5th movie in history to break the $1 billion mark.  It has been the number one movie in every single market except India. I think that is a pretty good indication that the movie is worth seeing.

Don't agree with this at all. Success in the box office doesn't necessarily equate to a movie being good or not. OK, so you're not going to get absolute trash like "The Hottie and The Nottie" breaking any box office records, but the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time is currently as follows:

1. Titanic
   
2. Avatar
   
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
   
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
   
5. The Dark Knight
   
6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
   
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
   
8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
   
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
   
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
    

Some excellent movies in there for sure, e.g. the LOTR series, but the best ever? No chance. I thought the last two Pirates Of The Caribbean movies were pretty awful, and the Harry Potter series are just formulaic kids' movies. And as for the current #1 - a large pile of over-rated, sentimental rubbish if you ask me. Just outside the top 10, at #11 (and would have been #10 before Avatar was released), is Star Wars: The Phantom Menace - probably on more people's worst movies of all time list rather than their best.

I've not seen Avatar yet (and I do intend to), and I expect it to be entertaining, but I don't imagine it will be as earth-shattering as some people are making it out to be.

(Source for the highest grossing movies list)

Edited January 6, 2010 by dantilley

[ashacat]

Seen it on IMAX and normal 3D, it's amazing.

If you want to book for IMAX you can do it via ThaiTicketMajor and pick up the tickets in Paragon...

[bonobo]

To the movie itself, in only three weeks, it has become only the 5th movie in history to break the $1 billion mark.  It has been the number one movie in every single market except India. I think that is a pretty good indication that the movie is worth seeing.

Don't agree with this at all. Success in the box office doesn't necessarily equate to a movie being good or not. OK, so you're not going to get absolute trash like "The Hottie and The Nottie" breaking any box office records, but the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time is currently as follows:

1. Titanic
   
2. Avatar
   
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
   
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
   
5. The Dark Knight
   
6. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
   
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
   
8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
   
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
   
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
    

Some excellent movies in there for sure, e.g. the LOTR series, but the best ever? No chance. I thought the last two Pirates Of The Caribbean movies were pretty awful, and the Harry Potter series are just formulaic kids' movies. And as for the current #1 - a large pile of over-rated, sentimental rubbish if you ask me. Just outside the top 10, at #11 (and would have been #10 before Avatar was released), is Star Wars: The Phantom Menace - probably on more people's worst movies of all time list rather than their best.

I've not seen Avatar yet (and I do intend to), and I expect it to be entertaining, but I don't imagine it will be as earth-shattering as some people are making it out to be.

(Source for the highest grossing movies list)

Box office success is very valid indication if a movie is good or not.  Most movies are made for one major reason--to make money. So if a movie has a large box office performance, it is safe to say that this is an indication that the movie is "good."  And while I may agree with you that the last several Harry Potter movies did nothing for me, all that means is that I am out of touch with the majority.

Of course, there are many different ways to classify how good a movie is, and everyone has their own perspective and opinions.  Great cinematography, great writing, great acting, great effects, etc.  All these are rather subjective.  But how much money it draws, well that is pretty objective.  And comparing the income with the costs, well, that tells how "good" a movie is with regards to business.

Now as far as enjoying a movie, well that is dependent on your own perspective, and a top box-office draw may not be your particular cup of tea.  But as a general rule of thumb, I feel a movie that is doing very well at the box-office has a better chance of being entertaining than a movie which folds after a week at the theaters with paltry sales.

And there is the cultural aspect of a movie.  For example, whether you like scifi or not, movies such as Star Wars and even the Terminator movies have become part of American culture, at least, and by seeing them, you can understand more about the culture and pop references. References to "The Governator" when talking about US politics mean nothing unless you know about Arnold and his role in Terminator.

So I stand by my assertion that Avatar's box office performance is a pretty good indication (not an absolute fact, but only an indication) that the movie is worth seeing.

[zippydedodah]

When's it gonna be available on DVD?

Never ... in 3 D

Seen the movie last Saterday in Central Plaza Khonkaen

A great movie for the whole family

never say never... the latest tech shows in US are heavily leaning on the 3-D market and i am told that they are some moderately viewable 3-D fliks on blu-ray even now. As with most technologies, they will improve drastically once the consumer adopts them and the price is right....

[dantilley]

Box office success is very valid indication if a movie is good or not.  Most movies are made for one major reason--to make money. So if a movie has a large box office performance, it is safe to say that this is an indication that the movie is "good."

That's a completely bogus argument. If a movie makes money, it only indicates that it has been marketed well, it has hardly any correlation with the quality of the movie itself. If a movie is below par then those who pay attention to critics and reviews won't see it - but throw enough money at a marketing campaign and it's got a good chance of being a box office success.

Of course, there are many different ways to classify how good a movie is, and everyone has their own perspective and opinions.  Great cinematography, great writing, great acting, great effects, etc.  All these are rather subjective.

Of course it's all subjective. If someone tells me that "Scary Movie 4" is the best movie they've ever seen, as moronic as I may find the statement, I can't really say it's wrong as it's their opinion.

But how much money it draws, well that is pretty objective. And comparing the income with the costs, well, that tells how "good" a movie is with regards to business.

Nothing to do with the movie itself. I may say that I really like the poster they made with Pamela Anderson in a tight leather suit for for the film "Barb Wire" but it has absolutely no bearing on the quality (or lack of quality) of the film itself.

Now as far as enjoying a movie, well that is dependent on your own perspective, and a top box-office draw may not be your particular cup of tea.  But as a general rule of thumb, I feel a movie that is doing very well at the box-office has a better chance of being entertaining than a movie which folds after a week at the theaters with paltry sales.

I don't make judgement on a movie due to whether or not it's a top box-office draw, as I know that it doesn't have any bearing (well, not much anyway) on the movie itself. Plenty of movies regarded as classics have barely made a dent in the box office - especially over here in Thailand.

[bonobo]

Box office success is very valid indication if a movie is good or not.  Most movies are made for one major reason--to make money. So if a movie has a large box office performance, it is safe to say that this is an indication that the movie is "good."

That's a completely bogus argument. If a movie makes money, it only indicates that it has been marketed well, it has hardly any correlation with the quality of the movie itself. If a movie is below par then those who pay attention to critics and reviews won't see it - but throw enough money at a marketing campaign and it's got a good chance of being a box office success.

"Bogus?"  OK, tell that to anyone in the movie industry.  You saying it is "bogus" is you merely putting your own parameters on what makes a good movie.  But you completely ignore the purpose almost all movies have--to make money.  It is a business.  

And in those terms, the terms of the movie makers, yes, there is a 100% correlation on the box office draw on how "good," in business terms, a movie is.  Did it make money?

Now I can go through a list of movie after movie which made money but I thought was totally asinine or poorly made. But the people who made the movie don't really care about that, for the most part.  They care more if the movie was a commercially viable product. And if I was going to invest in a movie, then I certainly would rather have a mass-market appealing film which made money than a movie which I personally enjoyed, but tanked at the box office.  As a consumer, I thought the Blair Witch Project was abhorrible and Henry:  A Portrait of a Serial Killer was a fantastic film.  Which one was better?  For me, there was no contest. Henry was much better.  But as part of the movie industry, there was also no contest, but in the other direction.  

But let's take your argument that box office draw has no bearing on if a movie is "good" or not.   Let's make a list of the four biggest financial flops of all time (which is a little open to debate as figures were juggled a little for studio face-saving and tax reasons.)  Then lets compare them to the top four box office draws.  

Worst:  Zyzzyx Road, Town & Country, Psychedelic Cop, and Heaven's Gate

Best:  Titanic, Avatar, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Can you honestly state that any of the worst four are "better," by any definition, than any of the top-performing four?  And that box office draws of these films have zero connection with the films' quality (or lack thereof)?

If you honestly cannot conceive of a universe where a large vote of public confidence in a film, as demonstrated by the numbers of tickets sold, is at least one indication of how "good" a film is, well, so be it.  Enjoy the films you want and I will enjoy the films I want.  

Peace, out.

[dantilley]

And in those terms, the terms of the movie makers, yes, there is a 100% correlation on the box office draw on how "good," in business terms, a movie is.  Did it make money?

Obviously a movie is considered "good" from a business perspective if it makes money. But i thought we were talking about the quality of the film-making here which is entirely separate from how much money it makes.

But let's take your argument that box office draw has no bearing on if a movie is "good" or not.   Let's make a list of the four biggest financial flops of all time (which is a little open to debate as figures were juggled a little for studio face-saving and tax reasons.)  Then lets compare them to the top four box office draws.  

Worst:  Zyzzyx Road, Town & Country, Psychedelic Cop, and Heaven's Gate

Best:  Titanic, Avatar, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Can you honestly state that any of the worst four are "better," by any definition, than any of the top-performing four?  And that box office draws of these films have zero connection with the films' quality (or lack thereof)?

That's not taking my argument that box office draw has no bearing on if a movie is "good" or not: that's implying that box office success makes movies worse which is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the two aren't connected.

If you honestly cannot conceive of a universe where a large vote of public confidence in a film, as demonstrated by the numbers of tickets sold, is at least one indication of how "good" a film is, well, so be it.

Numbers of tickets sold only indicate one thing - how many people have seen the movie. As far as we know, everyone could have come out of the cinema hating it - doesn't matter, they've already paid their money and contributed to the movie's financial success.

[bonobo]

Obviously a movie is considered "good" from a business perspective if it makes money. But i thought we were talking about the quality of the film-making here which is entirely separate from how much money it makes.

That's not taking my argument that box office draw has no bearing on if a movie is "good" or not: that's implying that box office success makes movies worse which is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the two aren't connected.

Numbers of tickets sold only indicate one thing - how many people have seen the movie. As far as we know, everyone could have come out of the cinema hating it - doesn't matter, they've already paid their money and contributed to the movie's financial success.

Last time, then I am done with this train of arguments.  Accept what I am writing or not, it is no skin off my nose either way.

Once a film is in the can, it is done, and its degree of "goodness" is in some ways a done deal.  

For the producers of the movie, the reason the movie was made, the only basis by which to judge if a movie is "good" is by the receipts.  Sure, awards and reviews are important, but other than inflating egos, to the producers, even those are important with regards to how many more people they drive into the theaters.

And for everyone else with their wide a varied opinions on what constitutes as "good" movie, the box-office tally does not in-and-of-itself classify a movie as to its degree of "goodness."  But, as I wrote from the beginning, it can be indicative of that.  You write that people pay to see a movie, then they can either think it is good or not.  Absolutely true.  But will they recommend it to their friends, will they blog about it in a positive way, will they go back to see it again if they think it is bad?  A movie with a high first weekend draw, but which then tanks is probably a movie which is not very good, but merely had a good marketing campaign.   But a movie which continues to draw, which does not have a big drop-off from one week to another, well, that is indicative that people like it, that the word-of-mouth is good.  I don't see too many posters here on TV lauding Did You Hear About the Morgans, but I have read quite a few posts advising people to see Avatar.

Aside from the movies' purpose of making money (and that is ignoring the main reason a movie is even made), box-office draw does not mean in absolute terms a movie is good or bad.  But it is a piece of data, a clue, an indication on how the public perceives that movie. The public "votes" with their wallets.  As an individual, you may or may not agree with that "vote."  Nothing wrong with that.

But to blithely assert that there is absolutely no connection between how many people go see a movie and how "good" it is, is just a little silly, in my opinion.  My bottom line is that generally speaking, particularly at the extremes, more people will go see a "good" movie than a "bad" one.

And now to quote Forrest Gump, "And that's all I have to say about that."

[dantilley]

Well, we've thrashed it out enough now I think and I do actually agree with a lot of what you wrote in that last post, but to refer back to your post which started all this:

It has been the number one movie in every single market except India. I think that is a pretty good indication that the movie is worth seeing.

So, clearly, for you the position a movie sits in the box office charts is a major factor for whether you'll go to see it or not. What I've been meaning to say is that, for me, it makes no difference. Obviously my attention will be drawn towards a movie which is doing well at the cinema - but I won't pay to go and see it until I've consulted a few trusted sources to gauge the quality of the film itself. So, as Avatar has done OK in the press (but not amazingly, mind) I'll probably go and see it. But if it had been slated as Transformers 2 was, then I'll spend my money elsewhere.

But, each to their own and all that...

[Chicog]

IIRC Twilight New Moon gay vampires was top of the charts for a while and has made a packet.

It's still shit though.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Chicog

[bonobo]

IIRC Twilight New Moon gay vampires was top of the charts for a while and has made a packet.

It's still shit though.

You may not like it, and I never saw it because of the negative reviews, but I bet the producers are lamenting yours and my opinion all the way to the bank.

(I have to ask though, why do you feel it necessary to type the movie as "gay?"  As far as I know, the film revolves around a heterosexual couple, and while rumors surrounded a couple of the actors, I didn't think there was any gay theme in the script.)

[sbk]

Is Avatar still at the IMAX at Paragon? I will be in Bangkok next week and thought I might go see if its still playing

[dantilley]

Is Avatar still at the IMAX at Paragon? I will be in Bangkok next week and thought I might go see if its still playing

Yes, I tried to go and see it at Paragon IMAX on Sunday but it was already sold out by the time I arrived. Anyway, the desk clerk told me it's showing until 20th Jan.

[needforspeed]

Is Avatar still at the IMAX at Paragon? I will be in Bangkok next week and thought I might go see if its still playing

Yes, I tried to go and see it at Paragon IMAX on Sunday but it was already sold out by the time I arrived. Anyway, the desk clerk told me it's showing until 20th Jan.

Wen yesterday, 11:00 AM only about 50 people so try the morning one if possible.